The operation of hidden prejudice in pre-court procedures: The case                     of Australian Aboriginal youth

Gale, Fay; Wundersitzt, Joy

doi:10.1177/000486588902200101

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Committee was also concerned with the ongoing debate over whether the system was dealing effectively with the serious offender and/or the long-term recidivist. The Justice and Consumer Affairs Committee (1988) concluded that the various discretionary mechanisms in place at the time had led to a number of 'net-widening' effects, specifically with regard to the growing number of Aboriginal juveniles entering the legal system (Gale & Wundersitz, 1989). The Committee also identified numerous other problems, including: (a) long delays in processing youth offenders (with some offenders reoffending before their first appearance within the system); (b) the non-participatory role of the offender and the threat of marginalization by the presence of lawyers, social workers and other professionals; (c) the exclusion of the victim from the process; and (d) the failure to include the young person's parents in the decision-making process.…”

Section: Background To the Current Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Emergence and Development of Specialist Courts: Lessons for Juvenile Justice from the History of the Children’s Court in South Australia?

King¹

2011

TOCRIJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:To illustrate how specialist courts have developed to manage juvenile offenders, this paper provides an overview of the history and development of the youth court in one jurisdiction, South Australia. Drawing on interviews conducted with judicial officers, the paper seeks to highlight some of the changes that have taken place since the Court's inception, as well as how the Court currently understands its role and positioning within the broader justice and welfare systems. Key discussion points of these interviews included the Youth Court's guiding principles and how they impact on court procedures and responses to young people in the system, as well as the challenges that limit, or create difficulties for, the effective operation of the Youth Court. It is concluded that the Youth Court system attempts to balance both welfare and justice approaches to dealing with young people, but are sometimes hindered by inadequate procedural, structural and resource-related factors -some of which exist externally to the Youth Court itself.

show abstract

Section: Background To the Current Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Emergence and Development of Specialist Courts: Lessons for Juvenile Justice from the History of the Children’s Court in South Australia?

King¹

2011

TOCRIJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Highly selective policies for admission, for program progression, and the "social reintegration" goals pursued in at least some US schemes as part of long periods of "aftercare", may all combine to skew social outcomes in favour of offenders who are "status rich" at the expense of those whose standing is more marginal (as found by Vito & Tewksbury, 1998, p. 48). Juvenile conferencing schemes too need to be very aware that earlier attempts at diversion were found to discriminate against groups such as indigenous youth (Gale & Wundersitz, 1989).…”

Section: Ingredients Of the New Programsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The question of equity is harder to come to grips with, because it is well accepted that traditional forms of adjudication are implicitly biased against certain racial, class or income groups. (Australian evidence suggests that diversion schemes continue to discriminate against Aboriginal groups for instance: Gale & Wundersitz, 1989;Kelly & Oxley, 1998) In some instances, the reforms will have a positive effect. The adult guardianship tribunal experiment for instance clearly succeeded in opening access to people otherwise deterred by cost or psychological barriers (Carney & Tait 1997).5 But in others, the gateways are being narrowed.…”

Section: Is It Equitable?mentioning

confidence: 99%

New Configurations of Justice and Services for the Vulnerable: Panacea or Panegyric?

Carney

2000

Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A ccessible justice (tribunals). integrated justice (drug courts). community justice (sentencing circles or "conferencing"), group justice (ulysses agreements). and contractual justice (private "settlements") are new ways of tackling old problems; often ones involving vulnerable groups.Vulnerable groups pose particular challenges about whether the state should intervene. in what ways. and whether through the legal. medical. or welfare systems. New programs. with new objectives and new sectoral boundaries. necessarily raise new questions. Questions about ethical foundations. Questions about implications for "citizenship". or for the rule of law. or for distributional equity.And questions about program "effectiveness". This paper identifies common themes and patterns in the reforms. including "active" rather than passive adjudication. judicial commitment to realisation of identified goals, intersectoral collaboration, community input or control. and use of privatised "contraetualist" metaphors. It considers the extent to which this reflects globalisation (harmonisation with civil law experience). or is emblematic of "postmodernism" (better attuning programs to diversity and fluidity). or other theoretical positions (such as contractualism and republican citizenship). It is argued that these experiments should be cautiously welcomed. subject to rigorous assessment of their merits. since their over-enthusiastic adoption risks breaches of fundamental ethical. civil citizenship, or medico-legal precepts. and may allow theory to outstrip its evidentiary base. Innovation and experimentation in criminal justice or civil treatment is commendable. especially in social policy areas littered with the detritus of prior program failures, or beset with tricky conundrums. Such experimentation has taken place for centuries, despite the thorny ethical or policy issues which can arise (Auerbach, 1983; Kittrie, 1971). A revised version of a paper presented at the 24th Congress of the Academy of Law and Mental Health, Toronto, 16-18June 1999. I am indebted to Myra Cheng for research assistance in finalising this paper, and comments by two anonymous reviewers.

show abstract

“…Second, a recent discussion paper, Youth, Crime and Justice In Queensland Gale and Wundersitz (1987;. This research compares police handling of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal youth, controlling for socio-economic circumstances, which is seldom achieved statistically in research on Aboriginal people and the justice system -Australian or Canadian.…”

Section: In His Study On Aboriginal Youth and Police Interrogation Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

Canadian Aboriginal Justice Commissions and Australia's 'Anunga Rules': Barking up the Wrong Tree

Samuelson¹

1995

Canadian Public Policy / Analyse de Politiques

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The operation of hidden prejudice in pre-court procedures: The case of Australian Aboriginal youth

Cited by 6 publications

References 13 publications

The Emergence and Development of Specialist Courts: Lessons for Juvenile Justice from the History of the Children’s Court in South Australia?

The Emergence and Development of Specialist Courts: Lessons for Juvenile Justice from the History of the Children’s Court in South Australia?

New Configurations of Justice and Services for the Vulnerable: Panacea or Panegyric?

Canadian Aboriginal Justice Commissions and Australia's 'Anunga Rules': Barking up the Wrong Tree

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About